G.R. No. A.C. 5955; September 8, 2009
John Christen S. Hegna, Complainant, vs. Atty. Goering G.C. Paderanga, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant John Christen S. Hegna was the prevailing party in a forcible entry case (Civil Case No. R-45146) before the MTCC of Cebu City. The court ordered defendants spouses Eliseo Panaguinip to vacate the leased premises and pay damages. After the judgment became final and a writ of execution was issued, the defendants sought to delay execution. Respondent Atty. Goering G.C. Paderanga intervened by filing an Affidavit of Third-Party Claim with the sheriff, asserting ownership over a parcel of land and a motor vehicle allegedly sold to him by the judgment debtors through Deeds of Absolute Sale dated November and December 2001. This claim temporarily halted the levy of properties.
Subsequently, respondent also filed a separate Complaint for Annulment of Judgment, which resulted in the RTC issuing a preliminary injunction that further enjoined the execution of the MTCC decision. The RTC later dismissed this annulment complaint. Complainant alleged that the deeds of sale presented by respondent were falsified to fraudulently obstruct the execution of a final judgment, as evidenced by irregularities such as the deeds being notarized under a wrong series and the lack of corresponding transfers in the official registries.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Goering G.C. Paderanga is administratively liable for professional misconduct.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that respondent engaged in dishonest and deceitful conduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The legal logic centers on the lawyer’s duty of candor and fairness to the courts. By submitting a third-party claim and initiating an annulment suit based on allegedly falsified documents, respondent employed a deliberate scheme to delay and frustrate the execution of a final and executory judgment. His actions were not a legitimate exercise of a legal remedy but a misuse of judicial processes to aid judgment debtors in evading their lawful obligation.
The Court emphasized that a lawyer is an officer of the court whose primary duty is to assist in the administration of justice. Resorting to deceptive means, such as presenting documents with evident irregularities, constitutes gross misconduct. It undermines the integrity of the legal profession and obstructs the efficient implementation of court orders. The act of filing a baseless annulment case to secure an injunction compounded this deceit. Therefore, respondent violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Code, which prohibit lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. The Court suspended him from the practice of law for one year as a commensurate penalty for his dishonest and obstructive actions.